Originally posted by costiqueAll I want is that if CoreImage doesn't detect a qualifying GPU, it should tax my CPU. I guess it might not be very trivial, but is there anything an NVidia chip can do while a G3 can't? There are kernel extensions. You might load one if your GPU rulez and load another if it sucks, and the latter will direct the same API to a framework, implemented in CPU alone. Does it sound too ridiculous?

No. And Apple even addressed this, by stating that CoreImage will scale down on lesser hardware. Whether that means the effects no longer become real-time, or whether they're disabled, I do not know. But it will still be available in some form.

i just bought an iBook G4 1Ghz 3 days ago, and now i have to hear that i won't support Core video en core imaging

that reallt makes me kinda angry. i spent a year of savings to an iBook, then to finally get it and then get the news that it won(t support the next thing that has been already developped. they knew that then didn't they.

they should upgrade the iBooks, eMacs and iMacs that don't support this technology that have been purchased within the forgoing 1.5 years of the release of the os.

else i have doubts about buying an other mac ever(since it's a word that jobs likes to use, like fastest EVER )

and very few poeple can afford to buy a mac every year or even 2 years, especially students, and since apple says that education is a very importtant market for them, they should also think about how long a machine lasts untill it's obsolete

else i have doubts about buying an other mac ever(since it's a word that jobs likes to use, like fastest EVER

Don't worry. Again your user experiene will scale depending on the equipment you have. I couldn't purchase a PC right now with many guarantees that I would be able to run MS Longhorn well. Enjoy your computer and when the times comes to replace it you get the speed boost and the technology of that time.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

1) Tiger will, in all likelyhood, run fine even on RAGE128/8MB graphics cards. No, you will not be able to see real time effects, just like those machines do not support Quartz Extreme.

2) There are sound technical reasons for this. Core* introduces those plugin units that are executed in the GPU. However, only the latest graphics chip generation supports this. In Windows-land this is known as DirectX 9. All older chips simply do not have fully programmable shaders which are an absolute requirement. The amount of VRAM does not matter, even a 256MB card without programmable shaders cannot lift this, while a 64MB card with shaders can.
Core* is akin to 64 bitness - you cannot have it even on fast older hardware, but you can work around the lack of it easily.

3) Apple will most likely provide a software-based fallback solution if you GPU is too old. No, it won't be real time, and yes it will be slow.

4) We are mocking MS for being late and slow regarding Longhorn? Well, the flip side is that in 2007 no-one will raise an eyebrow that they will require DX9 too. Apple's breakneck pace comes with a price, but you can only have one or the other...

5) Apple is announcing it *now* for delivery with an OS release one full year down the road and application support starting something like two years in the future. Seeing how some people here are threatening to withdraw their love from Apple unless they upgrade older machines, I suddenly understand their usual secrecy. Maybe they should stop preannouncing future feature at all and just unwrap them. This way, only customers who bought in the last three month bitch and not those who bought 1.5 years back (relative to release).

6) Yes, Apple should offer more BTO-configs for *Books and iMacs/eMacs, but the 5200 in the PowerMac is not a disgrace. A lot of people buy those machines not for watching the desktop wobble when some silly gadgets appear. As an example, as a software developer I am looking for raw CPU power rather than GFX performance and am hardly willing to pay $600 for a graphics card. I am not even sure I'd upgrade from $50 to $150 worth of GPU power.

Conclusion: don't get your panties in a bunch, people, this is future software and rightfully requires bleeding-edge hardware to spread its wings.

But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.

Don't panic, guys. My guess is that this API uses whatever the system is equipped with: basic PowerPC, AltiVec, SMP, and/or programmable GPU. Part of its purpose is to allow developers to write their code once and deploy it efficiently across all of these forms of hardware. If Apple has done a good job of it then the same code will run on an older machines single G3, or consume all of the processors in a SMT dual core dual chip and PCIe-equipped high end GPU.

As for all the guys bemoaning the 5200, (a 1.33 year old card at this point -- it was introduced March 2003) give it a rest. Its not as bad as you make it out to be for non-gaming uses. The weakness of this card is primarily its memory bandwidth, and this is mainly noticable when using anti-aliasing. CoreImage (and desktop apps in general) do not use anti-aliasing and thus aren't as sensitive to its impact on pixel rate. This card's vertex processing rate isn't up to 9800 standards, but then neither are its price and heat output! The 5200 should help the iMac's CoreImage performance noticably since it compares well with that machine's CPU. Even on a machine with stronger CPUs, the more work you can do in parallel, the better your net performance. The only time this isn't true is if it takes more work to distribute the task to all the processors than is saved by doing so... and that shouldn't be true of any modern GPU.

Take a look at the word "CORE" that should explain things in a significant manner. Core implies to me just that a central feature of the OS, it is not something that will be limited to Graphics workstations. Core Imaging will impact every program running on that revision of the OS or later.

The point with any eMac or iBook purchase at this juncture is that they have zero life span. Even the used market is likely to collapse as Tiger is taken up in the community. What we are talking about is a whole generation of features that the current iBooks will not be albe to take advantage of. The performance differences won't be significant they will be dramatic.

The point is that purchasing either of these computers is, at this point, silly if you expect to hold the purchase more than a year. The computers have gone from being a very good value to a much more questonable value, with the announcement of some of tigers features. If you not interested in Tiger, or expect replacement in the short term, then by all means consider the machines to be a good value. If on the other hand Tiger interests you at all then it probally is not a good idea to invest in the hardware expecting to make good use of Tiger or any of its other features.

Thanks
Dave

Thanks
Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by iPeonAnd why would a user with a current eMac and iBook need Core Image functionality? Those Mac models are entry level Macs, never intended to be used as Graphic work stations and priced as such.

Core Image functionality won't available for any Mac until Tiger is released anyway. That's ONE year away into the future.

This is the dumbest argument in the long tawdry history of dumb arguments.

The Skinny:

Apple will (next year) upgrade its OS with an astonishing feature which allows software to take advantage of current GPU technology to best effect. This feature opens up new classes of image and video application - previously only available on dedicated workstations.

Incidentally - Microsoft intend to do something similar with their new OS due in two years (or thereabouts)

The upshot.
People moan about it. Our old hardware can't use this feature. Why has Apple treated us so cruelly - Boo Hoo!

What conclusion may we draw from this furore:
Here are some alternatives:

1) Conservative: Apple should not do this "innovation stuff" because it will piss-off owners of older hardware. Come to think of it. - They should go back to monochrome screens and dot matrix printers! Stylus PCs PAH! We want Quill support whippersnapper!

or

2) Communist: Apple is being elitest. It should do some magic which makes high performance GPU effects democratically available on ALL hardware. Perhaps they should upgrade us all for free. Each according to need!

or

3) Capitalist: This is a marketing ploy by Apple get us to buy new computers. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!! Who do they think they are?

or

4) Anarchist: I reject all forms of upgrade: If I can't have 150 innovation I certainly will not accept a mere 148. I spit on your Tiger! Perhaps I will pirate it. That'll show em.

or....

5) - My personal favourite : Realist: Apple has not treated you cruelly. They really haven't. They are agressively building an OS for the future- one which exploits present generation hardware to the max. By including this feature, a new computer will do more cool stuff. THIS IS A GOOD THING. PERIOD.

If they do a good job - your older hardware *will* work -but it will not be as fast. Hey, no shit Sherlock. You can't make a silk purse from an GeForce2MX y'know.

Originally posted by ollebolleyes, ok, but they saw it all coming, you don't develop a technology on certain hardware if the hardware didn't exist yet.

they then deliberately choose to cheat the customers who bought an apple machine of this kind, that they knew it wouldn't support the new technology.
they could

1: inform customers about it not being supported

or

2: upgrade to a card that does support it.

No that runs counter to how the whole industry works. Either the hardware is far advanced and beyond current software capabilities(ie 3D card shader features and games that support them) or it's the inverse.

How can Apple inform customers about a product that might not ship for for a year?

Upgradeable video is something no one gets with a portable.

There are no excuses here. If you buy a portable your video today is locked in. There is a reason why it's always recommended that you purchase the fastest computer you can afford. It's future proofing yourself against new features coming down the pipe.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Originally posted by CarniphageThis is the dumbest argument in the long tawdry history of dumb arguments.

The Skinny:

Apple will (next year) upgrade its OS with an astonishing feature which allows software to take advantage of current GPU technology to best effect. This feature opens up new classes of image and video application - previously only available on dedicated workstations.

Incidentally - Microsoft intend to do something similar with their new OS due in two years (or thereabouts)

The upshot.
People moan about it. Our old hardware can't use this feature. Why has Apple treated us so cruelly - Boo Hoo!

What conclusion may we draw from this furore:
Here are some alternatives:

1) Conservative: Apple should not do this "innovation stuff" because it will piss-off owners of older hardware. Come to think of it. - They should go back to monochrome screens and dot matrix printers! Stylus PCs PAH! We want Quill support whippersnapper!

or

3) Capitalist: This is a marketing ploy by Apple get us to buy new computers. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!! Who do they think they are?

If they do a good job - your older hardware *will* work -but it will not be as fast. Hey, no shit Sherlock. You can't make a silk purse from an GeForce2MX y'know.

Carni

The reason people are upset. If you by a new Apple consumer machine today, you will not people to run core image and undisclosed key features of the OS that is due in 6 months or so. That is ridiculous. We aren't talking about rev a imac owners; i jus t bought an ibook. That is unreasonable that I will not be able to use core image. Am i being unrealistic, absoluteely not. People who bought their PCs last week will be able to use XP service pack 1 or what ever it is called.

So if Apple expects us to buy machines, and not have them work with a new feature 6 months later, that is unbelievable, and disappointing.

People who bought their PCs last week will be able to use XP service pack 1 or what ever it is called.

A service pack is bug fixes. Buying a PC today doesn't guarantee you can run Longhorns Aero Glass. If you want computer longevity don't buy the lowend models, they are built for those who are price conscious. This is really a non issue because Core Image/Video kicks in when you have capable hardware but if you do not you can still run the same apps. I know it's keen for some of you nitpick everything Apple does but it's always been this way for computers. New technologies require new hardware. Welcome to the real world.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Originally posted by hmurchisonA service pack is bug fixes. Buying a PC today doesn't guarantee you can run Longhorns Aero Glass. If you want computer longevity don't buy the lowend models, they are built for those who are price conscious. This is really a non issue because Core Image/Video kicks in when you have capable hardware but if you do not you can still run the same apps. I know it's keen for some of you nitpick everything Apple does but it's always been this way for computers. New technologies require new hardware. Welcome to the real world.

ordinarily i would agree a service pack is a bug fix, but the xp service pack is a real upgrade to hold off until longhorn. and well we all know longhoren will be out in 2006, 2 years from now. and tiger will be out in less than a year.
expecting your computer to handle upgraded software in the first year is reasonable.

Only if you have beyond the lowend model. This isn't an Apple issue. What people are in essence saying is that Apple should have OEM'd a more expensive graphics chip and ate the costs to appease the budget minded. Apple has a price point and a set margin range they want to hit. This doesn't afford them to opportunity to purchase as the nice whizbang stuff. People who have opted for the entry models and are now complaining are doing so from an irrational and emotive standpoint.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Originally posted by jadeordinarily i would agree a service pack is a bug fix, but the xp service pack is a real upgrade to hold off until longhorn. and well we all know longhoren will be out in 2006, 2 years from now. and tiger will be out in less than a year.
expecting your computer to handle upgraded software in the first year is reasonable.

It's not as if Tiger won't support your laptop... if Core Image is requiring the use of pixel shaders to do the work that it does (which I'm guessing is the case based on the card list), then the iBook/eMac/iMac 15" currently won't handle it. I assume the Core Image call would just take an alternate path to complete the operation rather than pipe it off to the GPU.

IMO it's similar to saying that your iBook won't play Halo properly because you don't have pixel shaders... Halo will play, you just can't have pixel shaders enabled.

Originally posted by MCQIt's not as if Tiger won't support your laptop... if Core Image is requiring the use of pixel shaders to do the work that it does (which I'm guessing is the case based on the card list), then the iBook/eMac/iMac 15" currently won't handle it. I assume the Core Image call would just take an alternate path to complete the operation rather than pipe it off to the GPU.

IMO it's similar to saying that your iBook won't play Halo properly because you don't have pixel shaders... Halo will play, you just can't have pixel shaders enabled.

Most of the current product lineup doesn't even support core image. hello?!?!?!? You spend $1800 on a 17" imac and it will be outdated before it ships?!?!?!?
The point is, low end apple products aren't cheap. The least apple can do is ship hardware that will support new stuff for a year. I still irritated that garage band only runs well on dual g5s.

Originally posted by hmurchisonOnly if you have beyond the lowend model. This isn't an Apple issue. What people are in essence saying is that Apple should have OEM'd a more expensive graphics chip and ate the costs to appease the budget minded. Apple has a price point and a set margin range they want to hit. This doesn't afford them to opportunity to purchase as the nice whizbang stuff. People who have opted for the entry models and are now complaining are doing so from an irrational and emotive standpoint.

Just curious, but how much do you think Apple saves per unit by going with a ATI Radeon 9200 instead of a GeForce 5200? $10?

Other companies are doing the same thing Apple is. Low and mid range computers don't get the high end gear. Its that simple. Why buy high end if the same equipment can be had from a lower tier computer?

The above Dell is very similar to my iBook in stats and guess what--its video chip is only dx8.1 compliant.

Man alive!!! What do you people actually expect? Do you people complain like this when you go to TGIFridays (or insert whatever mid grade restaurant) and get slightly poor service or your food isn't cooked exactly the way you wanted it? In most cases for minor problems you simply tip less. If you go to Aquas in Honolulu and get bad service then you complain. The difference between the two restaurants (besides the guys with swords at Aquas) is the level of expected service and associated price. If you pay for an iBook don't bitch because it will be almost obsolete in a year and a half (from now that is). That's the way the entire computer industry works. Go to dell and see for yourself. Go to gateway and see for yourself. Go to HP and see for yourself. If you want longevity of hardware buy highend. If you don't buy high end don't whine because of a shorter life span...

PS. The iMac was outdated before it rolled off the designing board. Its not the high end system. Its designed to do the basics and then a little more. That's it. All computer equipment is outdated before you buy it. Look at how fast video cards develop. Look at how fast intel/amd update their lineups. look at how fast PC motherboards change. Look at how fast FSB clock speeds have increased.

Carry on.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by jadeThe reason people are upset. If you by a new Apple consumer machine today, you will not people to run core image and undisclosed key features of the OS that is due in 6 months or so.

From all I read, this is simply not true. You will not have your GPU do the heavy-lifting, but will tax your CPU. Quite likely, some effects will be slow or somewhat choppy. But software-plugin will take over where hardware is not available.

This is absolutely no different from DirectX on the Windows side of the fence. I have developed software that required the customer to install DX9 for visualizations - yet since it did not require the full real-time power of highest-end gfx-cards, it ran on a 5 year old Dell notebook. Calculations were provided by the software-fallback units provided by DX9.

The exact same is going to happen with Core*. Yes, the next version of iPhoto will likely tap into its power to make brightnes/contrast corrections instantanous on high-end graphics cards. But this doesn't mean it won't run on my Tibook 400 - it will. Only it will calculate the corrections with the G4, just like it does today.

Core Image and Core Video ( and the new Quartz 2D ) use OpenGL Shader Language. Filters are written in that language, and when you apply a filter ( or multiple filters ) they are compiled into a custom shader program for that specific request ( add a filter and the shader program gets recompiled ).

Because the filters are compiled on demand ( ATI and nVidia cards require different shader programs ) it is also possible to compile the program for the cpu instead of the gpu, and, in fact, this is supported.

The only problem is that the developer can tell what hardware is availble and can choose not to use core image/video if a gpu isnt present. So, the net effect is that some applications will work on older hardware, and others wont.

I predict that you will see iMovie and iPhoto running CI/CV in realtime on GPUs, and as a 'render' process on slower hardware ( ie: just like they do now, only using a general purpose, layerable, plugin architecture ).

Originally posted by wizard69Take a look at the word "CORE" that should explain things in a significant manner. Core implies to me just that a central feature of the OS, it is not something that will be limited to Graphics workstations. Core Imaging will impact every program running on that revision of the OS or later.

Indeed.

And, as has been pointed out, CoreImage will in fact run on much more than just graphics workstations. It's been clarified that it doesn't get "disabled," because it's a core technology - it adapts to whatever hardware is available on the fly. This means that its performance scales to match your hardware. Imagine that!

People using older hardware will be able to take advantage of Core Image and Core Video, and all the effects they offer. They won't run in real time, but since there's no possible way that they could, it's enough that they'll work and work well.

It's not about whether you're able to use new capabilities at all. It's about how well they'll perform, and obviously the latest and greatest high-end kit will run anything better than last year's low-end kit. I'm looking forward to installing Tiger on my old Cube, and on my mom's 500MHz iBook, and having the new features run as well as they can. Neither machine is obsolete, as far as I can discern. They don't have to run everything as well as a tricked out PMG5, they just have to run what their users want them to. When they don't, they'll be truly obsolete.

Originally posted by mmmpie( ATI and nVidia cards require different shader programs )

If so, are CI/CV some sort of abstraction layers that compile shader programms for whatever GPU is in your PC? What will the performance hit compared to GPU-native Shader code be?

And to whoever was complaining about GarageBand being too slow on anything less than a Dual G5. There are two possible points of view:

1. Apple's consumer hardware is way to slow to even run consumer-level apps or these apps are poorly written.

2. (and that's how I see it) Apple dares to gives consumers bleeding edge (as in: has previously only been available to professionals at "professional" prices) software and - furthermore - makes it easy to use. And those two factors - pro-grade and ease of use - require a lot of horse power as soon as you use it in a "near-professional" way which you quickly will because you now can.

Actually that's not necessarily true. Core Image/Video is highly dependent on the shaders in certain GPUs(usually directx9 capable). If you don't have a capable GPU that doesn't mean you won't see a speedup in GUI functions. Apple has made some changes to Quartz 2D that won't require shader support and even your iBook will benefit from this.

We really must seperate what Core Image/Video does for you versus what Quartz does. Core Image/Video speeds up the processing of effects written for the shader within the GPU. Quartz is your entire windowing system. Apple will speed up Quartz for everyone and those that don't have GPUs for Core Image/Video just won't get the benefit of GPU processing for those apps that support Core Image/Video.

We all should see a speedup of general graphics.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Originally posted by RolandGIf so, are CI/CV some sort of abstraction layers that compile shader programms for whatever GPU is in your PC? What will the performance hit compared to GPU-native Shader code be?

And to whoever was complaining about GarageBand being too slow on anything less than a Dual G5. There are two possible points of view:

1. Apple's consumer hardware is way to slow to even run consumer-level apps

Ding Ding Ding. At the bare minimum any unit should be able to run the software that ships with computer acceptably. And it is disappointed that the vast majority of Apple's current lineup cannot handle the load that software currently requires. And that most current hardware will not support the next gen OS features natively.

A very acurate description with respect to what I understand aobut the technology. The problem that is see is which way does performance scale when you don't have the right GPU. I could see Core Imagining having a negative impact. It is certainly to early to be sure about that but I could see some shader technology so swamping the CPU as to actually be a step back.

A year or two down the road if this technology is heavely adopted I could see this as being significant. You would end up with applications performing dramatically differently depending on the hardware they run on.

Frankly it is good to see Apple moving forward with technology! My concern is that many people make majore investments in their computers and expect a long life otu of them. It would be foolish to buy some of todays hardware knowing what is comeing down the line. Obviously not an issue of one buys hardware on an annual or two year cycle, but for the majority of hte people out there that is not the case. Certianly it is worth atleast speaking up if friends should iquire. It is not like there is a long wait for updates on some of these items.

dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Amorph
Indeed.

And, as has been pointed out, CoreImage will in fact run on much more than just graphics workstations. It's been clarified that it doesn't get "disabled," because it's a core technology - it adapts to whatever hardware is available on the fly. This means that its performance scales to match your hardware. Imagine that!

People using older hardware will be able to take advantage of Core Image and Core Video, and all the effects they offer. They won't run in real time, but since there's no possible way that they could, it's enough that they'll work and work well.

It's not about whether you're able to use new capabilities at all. It's about how well they'll perform, and obviously the latest and greatest high-end kit will run anything better than last year's low-end kit. I'm looking forward to installing Tiger on my old Cube, and on my mom's 500MHz iBook, and having the new features run as well as they can. Neither machine is obsolete, as far as I can discern. They don't have to run everything as well as a tricked out PMG5, they just have to run what their users want them to. When they don't, they'll be truly obsolete.

Originally posted by jadeDing Ding Ding. At the bare minimum any unit should be able to run the software that ships with computer acceptably. And it is disappointed that the vast majority of Apple's current lineup cannot handle the load that software currently requires. And that most current hardware will not support the next gen OS features natively.

That spells update to me.

I won't go into GarageBand since I haven't really used it and have no point of reference.

As for updates, I'd imagine that the September iMac update will have all models CoreImage/Video ready (only the 15" iMac doesn't currently support it)... as far as the eMac, whenever that gets revised, I'd guess if they stuck with ATI then a Radeon x300 GPU would make that ready.

I wouldn't expect the iBook to be ready anytime soon unless a Mobile Radeon x300 came out sometime in the future from ATI.

Originally posted by ExistenceCore Image functionality is important in that applications that use it will require these chipsets. For example, Steve said in his keynote he wants Adobe to implement Core Image in Photoshop. If that happened, any mac that does not have these graphics chipsets would not benefit from the massive resulting speed boost (the speed boost from the 5200 is probably not worthwhile).

If you attended the Core Image sessions at WWDC you'd know that the CPU can take advantage of Core Image, you just cut your fps in half.

Quote:

The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

Originally posted by wizard69My concern is that many people make majore investments in their computers and expect a long life otu of them.

I'm in need of a portable mac, and will be buying an iBook in the next week. Whether or not it supports Core Image next year is of little concern for me.

If it works well for what I need now, it will continue to do so next year and 3 years from now. Whether or not I get fancy shmancy water ripple effects when invoking Dashboard... well, is that REALLY worth worrying about a year in advance.

If you need an portable and can't afford a PowerBook, get an iBook, use the hell out of it, and when it can't do what you need, reassess.

There is little doubt in my mind that some will be happy with just the installed OS and applications that they purchased with the hardware and will be so for a number of years beyond the purchase. I do not believe that this is the majority of the users out there. For those interested in a new machine it would be foolish not to advise them of the issue if your opinion is requested.

Quote:

(As an aside I've been asked the question many times --which should I get?-- and have often found that people don't want an honest answer. What they want is confirmation that they are doing the right thing.)

At this moment in time I believe that many people are going to be frustrated whit there old hardware when this new software technology come out.

As to the issue of it being worth worring about a year ahead of time, I geuss that all depends on how one values their money and how sure you are that you will never upgrade your system. Personnally investing that much money in something that >"MAY"< not support new software features all that well down the road is not a good feeling. Getting at least 3 to 4 years service out of hardware is important to me. So it is wise to take Apples announcements about software as a buying guide to current hardware. That is really all I'm saying, if your into the hardware for the long term, it might be best to avoid the iBook at the moment.

Dave

Quote:

Originally posted by Borborygmi
I'm in need of a portable mac, and will be buying an iBook in the next week. Whether or not it supports Core Image next year is of little concern for me.

If it works well for what I need now, it will continue to do so next year and 3 years from now. Whether or not I get fancy shmancy water ripple effects when invoking Dashboard... well, is that REALLY worth worrying about a year in advance.

If you need an portable and can't afford a PowerBook, get an iBook, use the hell out of it, and when it can't do what you need, reassess.